Paul Manafort, the well-connected political consultant targeted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was convicted this Thursday on eight felony charges resulting in 47 months in prison. In a world where non-violent drug offenders often receive a much harsher punishment, the Manafort sentencing feels like a slap in the face for anyone concerned with justice and highlights the incredible sentencing disparities in the U.S. justice system.
Manafort’s own defense team recommended a five-year sentence, much lighter than the prosecution’s recommended 19-year minimum. The defense used several strategies to convince Judge T.S. Ellis III to hand down that lighter sentence. These included:
1. The defense argued that Manafort has shown remorse for his crimes and accepted responsibility.
Aside from the fact that there are no reports of Manafort showing any remorse at his sentencing, Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed a 17-page document with the court to reject this claim. Mueller writes:
“As the Court is aware, the defendant exercised his constitutional right to trial in this matter and contested the facts and his guilt. That alone undermines any reduction for acceptance of responsibility. And, although Manafort subsequently pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia prosecution, he has since breached his plea agreement by making false statements to the government and the grand jury.”
2. The defense argued that there were mitigating factors: Manafort appeared at his sentencing in a wheelchair and bandaged foot, and the defense provided several testimonials of character on his behalf.
While it is true that Manafort appeared injured, I raise the leaked text messages between Manafort’s daughters that, to put it mildly, erase any conception that he is a good person.
“You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly,” says Andrea Manafort in a series of texts. “He is a sick f—ing tyrant, And we keep showing up and dancing for him. … We just keep showing up and eating the lobster. Nothing changes. Don’t fool yourself, that money we have is blood money… You know he has killed people in Ukraine. I know my dad is a horrible and moral-less human. Total selfish sociopath. I don’t ever fool myself or forget. He is a master manipulator. Mom thinks the power went to his head with Ukraine […] that it has turned him into a moral-less ethic-less person. Apparently, one guy put mom in a cage and made her act like a dog. He raped my mother, Collin.”
3. The defense argued that Manafort is unlikely to commit crimes again.
In this entire list, this is the most ridiculous. Manafort literally committed crimes while under court supervision. There is zero evidence to support this.
4. The defense argued that similar tax fraud and bank fraud cases resulted in similar sentences.
Just like the previous arguments, this one also fails to hold up to serious scrutiny. As per the Mueller memo:
“Manafort cites a smattering of offshore tax cases from across the country to argue that a lenient sentence is required to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated offenders. The cited examples, however, are inapposite, as none involves the combination of tax, FBAR, and bank fraud offenses evident in the jury’s guilty verdict here—much less a defendant who continued to engage in deceptive and criminal conduct following the indictment and after a guilty verdict and later guilty plea.”
So, if the defense’s case was so weak, what led to this insultingly weak sentencing?
Judge T.S. Ellis III, of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and an appointee under President Ronald Reagan, did declare that Manafort would receive no credit for cooperation or accepting responsibility. However, some of Judge Ellis’ previous comments suggested he might rule lightly. Ellis also revealed some sympathy for Manafort when he dramatically berated Mueller, saying:
“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud […] What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”
But, Judge Ellis’ comments don’t really make sense here, since law enforcement was aware of Manafort’s crimes before the special counsel investigation started. Manafort could have just as easily been indicted and convicted had the special counsel investigation never existed. This is an extraordinary case, and the punishment does not fit the crime, but more of Judge Ellis’ comments fail to acknowledge the extent of these crimes. He says Manafort “has lived an otherwise blameless life.”
The idea that Manafort has lived a ‘blameless life’ is complete falsehood, especially considering he is going to be sentenced for a different trial in the D.C. Circuit Court later this month, and that he avoided prosecution for previous crimes through the plea agreement he brokered with Mueller’s team. Not to mention the frankly staggering number of overseas corruption schemes he was involved in.
In an interview on a CNN broadcast on March 3, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA), said Judge Ellis should have recused himself from this case on the grounds that his language indicated clear bias, or at least sympathy, towards Manafort. I’m inclined to agree with him, especially since Judge Ellis himself sentenced a former Democratic congressman to 13 years on corruption charges that paled in comparison to Manafort’s.
Every argument the defense used to suggest a lighter sentence was countered by the prosecution. Still, Judge Ellis handed down a sentence lighter than even that, and his own words hinted at partisan bias in his decision making. This sentencing does no hold up to cross-examination and casts a stage light on sentencing disparities in the U.S. justice system. If misconduct by elites carries ludicrously low penalties, then it is institutionalized corruption. It sends a clear message about white-collar crime: low risk, high reward.
Arya Tousi
